Creative Class

Last summer, I blogged about Under Pressure in Montreal, one of Canada’s premier graffiti conventions. While out last night checking out a show, DJ Static [of the internationally acclaimed WEFUNK radio show and regular DJ @ Under Pressure] mentioned to me that the festival has recently encountered some economic peril with many of its funders backing out. It is not the only one though as the Under Pressure blog indicates:

After 13 years of dedication and hard work, the organizers of Scribble Jam had to regretfully announce that due to lack of funding and the current economic climate, they do not have the resources to continue with the festival this year.

Read more HERE.

Events such as Toronto’s Style In Progress have already succombed to the same fate and this serves as a reminder more than ever that Under Pressure 2009 needs YOUR support this year…

Meanwhile, festivals that are a bit smaller like Ottawa’s House of PainT, which are primarily DIY with a bit of local community support, continue to roll on. I’ve always understood Hiphop culture to be grounded in “get-it-how-you-live” economics. In other words, it emerged out of an endogomous low-budget environment where the idea of sponsorship or support from external agents was far-fetched at best. To borrow a concept form Karl Polanyi, the economy was very embedded in the society. To extend that idea a bit further, when economy is embedded in society that way, value becomes determined by metrics that are responsive to that society. That is to say the distance between expense and expectation is shorter in these kinds of societies. Particularly with respect to cultural products – currency expectations (read: cost) are set based on the value of that product, which is determined by those society specific metrics.

Haute Finance and global economics have disembedded economy from society such that the value of a product, cultural or otherwise, is set externally and determined by metrics that are often quite apart from the society that produces them. The idea was that the ability of federal governments to communicate, exchange currency and goods, and participate in this international system would set up a more even-handed trickle-down system for the citizens who produce those goods/services. 150 years later, we see how that’s worked out.

What’s going on with these festivals is a good example of all of that. As this culture globalized and patched itself into a bigger economic system, it’s on the ground value – the endogamous value – became supported by off the ground finance, and things got disembedded such that culturally important gatherings find it difficult to support themselves on their own steam.

Might we see more regional and embedded expressions of culture in the future, based on real value to that region like the House of Paint model? What other feasible models might emerge? How will cultural investment strategies be affected by/reposition on account of the economic climate?

Before I go, I’ve gotta give a big Rest In Peace shout to IZ the WIZ, one of the very few Kings graffiti, setting the standard in New York and all over the world. He passed away on Friday. Do the knowledge here.

Ed Glaeser has some very sensible things to say about the shrinking cities brouhaha. Despite the growing hype, there’s not a shred of evidence that the Obama administration is considering bull-dozering anything. Glaeser says it makes a heck of a lot more sense to favor people over places. Invest in human capital and encourage people to be mobile, Glaeser contends, promise much better long-term economic payoffs than undertaking expensive and dubious strategies to try to revive dying places.

It’s useful to put the current debate in historical context. “Planned shrinkage” was originally proposed in the 1970s by then NY housing commissioner Roger Starr. Even earlier, the late Senator Daniel P. Moynihan advocated for the related idea of “benign neglect” as a pillar of urban policy. Both resulted in a slew of unintended and nasty outcomes – like increased arson and violent crime. And as the market for some central locations, like NYC, began to improve, a whole bunch of neighborhoods that were candidates for government-assisted “shrinkage” (read: slow demolition) once again became valuable – parts of Brooklyn, Queens, Hoboken, even Jersey City. Economics is a big part of their comeback. But this would not have happened if the building stock of those places had been allowed to completely decay or was demolished.

It’s abundantly clear that the contemporary shrinking cities movement in the U.S. and Europe is much more sensitive to urban conditions. These contemporary approaches recognize that globalization and market forces work against some older locations. They sensibly suggest that such places would be better served by proactively managing the process of economic transformation and adjustment. Flint and Youngstown provide useful models of how older communities can strategically adjust to the strong forces of economic concentration and spiky globalization. Pittsburgh’s economic transformation – feted by Newsweek’s Howard Fineman among others as a model for Detroit and other places – is a case study of how to shrink smart and strategically.

The most successful shrinking strategies, like Pittsburgh’s, are not top-down affairs driven by all-knowing governments, but organic, bottom-up, community-based efforts. While Pittsburgh government and business leadership pressed for large-scale urban renewal – stadium-building, convention centers, and more far-fetched schemes for local mag-lev trains – its real  turnaround was driven by organic, bottom-up initiatives. Community groups, local foundations, and non-profits – not city hall or business-led economic development groups -  were the driving forces behind neighborhood stabilization and redevelopment, university-based economic development, water-front revitalization, park improvements, and green building among others.  This kind of bottom-up process takes considerable time and perseverance. In Pittsburgh’s case, it took the better part of a generation to achieve stability and the potential for longer-term revival.

All of which brings us back to a big question: What about people versus place strategies? I agree with Glaeser: people must be the priority. Especially in tough economic times, public investment should flow toward people. Early childhood investments, as James Heckman has shown, are the most important, longest-running and highest-paying investments we make.

But places also matter. Sure, there are plenty of things that urban policy has done wrong – like large-scale, top-down urban renewal – things that we need to stay wary of and not repeat.  That does not mean public policy should ignore places.

The quality of the place we live is a key component of our happiness and subjective well-being. We now have solid empirical evidence about what people want and need from places: safety and security, good schools, economic opportunity, the ability to connect to other people, ethical and forward-looking leadership, opportunities for civic engagement, a place that gives everyone a go with abundant green space, a clean environment, and a strong sense of its own history, among other things.

There are plenty of small-scale, locally rooted investments that can and do make a difference – the kinds of things Jane Jacobs and others have long advocated – that don’t cost an arm and a leg and which provide broad public goods kinds of benefits: improving run-down buildings and community sore spots, encouraging community engagement in schools, upgrading parks and open space, planting trees and urban gardens, adding bike lanes, widening sidewalks to encourage both pedestrian use and outside activity, updating zoning and building codes to enable upgrading of commercial strips, live-work conversion and mixed-used development.

As with so many things in life, it’s the small stuff that can really make a difference – in this case not just to cities, shrinking and otherwise – but to the quality of life and happiness of the people who live in them.

Crosscut argues that it’s time for Seattle and other cities to learn from NYC’s example and start turning old elevated structures into parks and other good uses (pointer via Planetizen).

[T]hink a bit about the advantages of elevated linear parks. They can provide remarkable views, often through the slots of the cityscape. They open up access to back-door and upper-level spaces. They make connections with gritty urban history. The design experience is not the usual bland blend but instead has the visual excitement and tension of green spaces set amid rusting iron forms. The Seattle aesthetic has been to make open space as green and pastoral as possible, as if blotting out the city. Time for a richer palate, a more dissonant and beautiful chord.

(Image from thehighline.org)

We always think of urban planning as the preparation for population and job growth. But, should some cities  plan for population and job decline?

Today, I was on NPR’s To the Point to discuss shrinking cities and the idea of planning for communities that are experiencing significant population decline. For today’s conversation, Flint, MI served as an intriguing case study. Some communities like Flint, MI are actively practicing land banking.

Take a listen.

NPR’s To the Point: Honey I Shrunk the City: Bold Ideas for Declining Urban Centers

“For years, urban planning has been all about growth. But in recent years, with the decline of American manufacturing, a whole new school of thought has emerged. It’s all about shrinking, not growing. As more and more metropolitan areas lose populations and healthy tax bases, guest host Sarah Terry looks at how are cities coming up with new solutions to control the change, instead of simply trying to cope with it.”

Listen here.

Profile here.

Should cities and communities plan for shrinking populations? Can this be part of a comprehensive economic development plan for declining communities?

Mysociety.org has created this amazing application to help citizens in London determine where they can live based on commute times, affordability and “scenicness.” The program is in beta but this short video below demonstrates its awesome potential. (To take the Who’s Your City? place finder, click here.)

This is the potential open data can unleash. Because MySociety can access transit and train schedules as well as real estate prices, they are able to mash up this data and create this map. Still more interesting is how they crowd-sourced the collection of a new data set. Those who watched the video may have noticed how the “scenicness” of an area came from people voting on how nice photos of different neighborhoods looked.

Mysociety also does maps that just show transit times and they are looking for funding to build them out in different cities.

Of course, the job is made a whole lot easier – and can be kept up to date – if the data is being shared in a format that constantly allows for updates. Just another example of how Open Cities can again better serve their citizens.

(via BoingBoing)

A new study in the medical journal Pediatrics (h/t Planetizen) finds that community and the built environment – everything from walkable streets to the location of schools – have big effects on the health of our kids.

An estimated 32% of American children are overweight, and physical inactivity contributes to this high prevalence of overweight.This policy statement highlights how the built environment of a community affects children’s opportunities for physical  activity. Neighborhoods and communities can provide opportunities for recreational physical activity with parks and open spaces, and policies must support this capacity. Children can engage in physical activity as a part of their daily lives, such as on their travel to school.

Factors such as school location have played a significant role in the decreased rates of walking to school, and changes in policy may help to increase the number of children who are able to walk to school. Environment modification that addresses risks associated with automobile traffic is likely to be conducive to more walking and biking among children. Actions that reduce parental perception and fear of crime may promote outdoor physical activity. Policies that promote more active lifestyles among children and adolescents will enable them to achieve the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity. By working with community partners, pediatricians can participate in establishing communities designed for activity and health.

Here’s a map of the human development of U.S. counties based on factors like income, education, literacy, and health (via (Map Scroll). There’s been some concern about the utility of such combined indexes, still this map provides a powerful visualization America’s enormous social, economic, and geographic divide.

More than 2,000 car dealerships across the country will be closing their doors in coming months. Planetizen – my favorite urbanist site – recently asked its readers what should be done with all that space. Here are the top five vote-getters as of May 21:

• Ask the local residents about what the community needs (222 votes)
• Urban gardens (200 votes)
• Create walkable, vibrant places and improve current communities (138 votes)
• Farmers’ markets and local events (126 votes)
• Solar and wind energy park/vehicle charging stations (102 votes)

Richard Florida will present his thoughts on how to develop a strong economy at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club in Naples, Florida, an event initiated by the Economic Development Council of Collier County. Taking place on Wednesday, May 20, the event entitled It Pays to Be Creative will include discussion of the three T’s of economic development, the importance of place, and investing in science and technology to increase creativity. For more event details, click here.

A shared vision is crucial to spurring change in a community – what road blocks continue to get in the way of creating a healthier economy in your city?

Is the new Yankee Stadium a “flop?” The Yankees – I must confess I am a Newark-born life-long fan – are losing and tickets aren’t selling. The Wall Street Journal asks:

The question is whether all the trouble ultimately will be worth it. If the new stadium fails to augment the Yankees’ payroll advantage over competing clubs, and if its propensity to allow home runs makes it difficult to craft an effective pitching staff – what was the point?

The real question is what these expensive, publicly bankrolled behemoths add to their local economies. The consensus across every, single serious study ever done of the economic impact of sports stadia is “absolutely nothing.” As the old song goes, ”say it again.”